Forestry spin-doctors claim that 80% of old-growth forests in Tasmania are protected. The truth behind that warm and fuzzy statement is that 80% of REMAINING old-growth forest is protected, that is perhaps only 5% of Tasmania's original forest cover. As more old-growth forest is lost, the area that is in reserves increases in relation to the total remaining old-growth. When the last unprotected tree falls, Barry Chipman will proudly puff out his chest and proud proclaim that 100% of old-growth forest in Tasmania is protected.

Tasmania's most significant forested valleys have not been protected as part of the spectacular and mountainous South West World Heritage Area. The boundary is set along the 400m contour, above the forests and excluding the most productive forestry areas. In places Forestry Tasmania has clear-felled right up to the WHA boundary, a deliberate strategy to limit further expansion of the protected area.

Tasmania's ancient forests are being "managed" into extinction. When forests are clear-felled as much as 50% of the felled trees are left on the ground. Extracted logs are mostly wood-chipped for export. Good saw logs are purposely crushed and split to downgrade them to feed the ever hungry woodchip mills.

Piles of leftover logs are burnt in a napalm holocaust of such intensity that towering mushroom clouds block the sun. The resulting "ash bed" is seeded with a single species where diverse eucalypt and rainforest species once stood. Surviving wildlife is poisoned with 1080 poison baits, to prevent them from eating the young trees.

The forest is now a tree farm, a pulp factory for efficient mechanical harvesting. No habitat for animals, no diversity, no beauty, no magic. In forestry spin this practice is known as "full sunlight regeneration". People not on the forestry payroll call it clear-felling, destruction, an abominable waste.

Current forestry practices cannot be compared to the practice of loggers 50 and 100 years ago who felled selectively and milled timber in the forest, taking care not to damage younger trees - their future livelihood. In pursuit of super-sized profits and a corporate monopoly of the resource, the timber industry itself destroyed the craft of the old timber-getters.

While the forestry spin doctors try their best to deflect public scrutiny, their corporate masters knowingly bleed the life out of one of the world's great ecological wonders. Tasmania's forest industry is controlled by vulgar, greedy and stupid people who fail to see that their war against nature is a war against their own future.

To suggest that the World Heritage Centre’s mission was flawed is a desperate and scandalous accusation. The Mission included Mr. Nikita Lopoukhine Chair, IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas, Kishore Rao (UNESCO, World Heritage Centre) and Kevin Jones (ICOMOS).

The report’s major recommendation was:
“Considering the representation of old growth forest, including of the tall Eucalyptus forest within the area covered by the TWWHA and its management plan, as well as in the other reserves in Tasmania, and the fact that potential threats from production forestry activities are well managed, the mission does not recommend any change to the boundaries of the property to deal with such threats. However, it recommends that boundaries of the TWWHA be adjusted to include within it the 21 areas of national parks and state reserves, which are currently not a part of the inscribed property but are covered by its management plan.”

This recommendation was accepted and is reflected in the Committee’s decision and involves no additional forest reservation.

The IUCN appears to be a key adviser to the World Heritage Committee but is not exempt from politics, at the time Greens Senator Christine Milne was its Australian Vice President. The report’s independence was compromised when a rider was added “Views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect IUCN policy in relation to this property”

The statement refers to a policy motion adopted in 1990 in relation to nine forest areas, Beech Creek/Counsel River, Wylds Craig, Gordon and Tiger Range, Upper Florentine, Upper Styx, Middle Weld, Middle Huon, Picton Valley and Southeast Cape all of which were all extensively studied in the 1997 RFA compromise and with minor areas excluded are part of the 21 areas of national parks and forest reserves.
The harvesting of this 30 ha coupe under the Forest Practices Code poses no threat to the WHA.

Yes Peter Volker is spot on with his comments regarding this video and the sustainability of our forest industry. In addition to Peter’s comments I’m sure that everyone will be very pleased to learn what the Paris based World Heritage Centre reported, following its high level delegation visit to my state of Tasmania earlier this year to assess claims made simular to those of Chris from Sydney.

The delegation reported in part; “The area managed under the TWWHA (Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area) management plan provides a good representation of well-managed tall Eucalyptus forest and there is similar forest outside the property which is also well-managed, but for both conservation and development objectives. The threats to these forests from production forestry activities are well managed and there no need for the boundary of the property to be changed to deal with such threats. “Recommendation 7 http://whc.unesco.org/

From this World Heritage Centre report I say congratulations to all involved in managing Tasmania’s working forest, to have the Paris based WHC provide this tick of approval to Tasmania’s forest industry is the reassurance I’m sure will provide great comfort to all that watch France 24.

It's a pity you did not identify or interview Don Francombe in your report. Don, more than anyone in the report, was the only person with an intimate understanding of the Florentine forests as he first started working in them more than 50 years ago. The campaign to save these forests has already been won. Even in areas designated for harvesting there are considerable areas left untouched for a number of reasons including fauna and flora, stream protection, cultural heritage and landscape. It is impossible to harvest a forest without making a mess. The woodchips and pulp you mention is a by product of harvesting extremely high quality sawlogs - you can't take the fillet stake from a cow and leave the rest behind. The protestors depicted in your story are not reasonable people. They will go to any length to get their wish. You didn't mention that the car in the story had its wheels removed by the protestors and they were in the process of locking their arms into steel tubes secured by concrete into the road - thereby stopping the harvesting contractor from getting to his legal place of work.
This story has its roots in western society ignoring its responsibility to provide some of the resources it uses from its own estate. We bleat on about conserving Australia's forests while we import over 6Mt of illegally logged timber from around the world, not to mention furniture and other wood products. Australia has some of the most stringent controls on forest practices in the world, we can sustain forest harvesting and regeneration in our forests.

Peter Volker
National President
Institute of Foresters of Australia
www.forestry.org.au

Once again for the benefit those interested Tasmania has well and truly achieved a world class reserve system for important conservation values including the one million hectares of old growth forest in secure reserves..
Following is a short run down of the significance of Tasmania’s conservation achievements, (and let’s not forget, it was production foresters back in the 1950’s who first reserved significant areas of old growth forests including the Styx and Florentine Valley’s) Tasmania has a total land mass of 6.8 million hectares, of that total land mass, 3.1 million hectares is all aged forests, of this total forest cover, 1.2 million hectares is old growth forest.
Now let’s look at conservation reserves, we have 2.9 million hectares of our total land mass reserved, included in this total reserved areas, is 1.4 million hectares of all aged forests, and of this total area of reserved forests, 1 million hectares is old growth forests. These figures can all be checked at www.daff.gov.au/forestry
Also not counted are the forest areas within production forests that the Forest Practices Code excludes from timber harvesting a whole range of forest values, from streamside reserves, habitat reserves to scenic zones.
When you compare what Tasmania has achieved, being 47% of total forest cover reserved, against the 10% forest reservation target laid down by WWF and the World Bank for country’s to aim for over a 20 year period, Tasmania has well and truly made a world class contribution to conservation.
Once again to all interested please if you can, visit this great state of Tasmania and see for yourself what Tasmania has achieved in reserving near half its total land mass and forest cover for conservation.

I love the way loggers make irrelevant claims like 40% of Tasmanian land mass is protected - most of that is mountainous and covers very little of these specific tall Eucalypt forest communities - a deliberately misleading use of statistics. There are no tall Eucalypts like the Styx and Florentine on the high alpine wilderness at Cradle mountain for example and never were - it is too cold and dry. Many of the national parks and world heritage areas were according to historians drawn up to exclude the exploitable tall old growth forests. Statistics can tell lies - New Zealand loggers for example can claim that 100% of old growth Kauri forest is protected (much like the way the loggers on this blog claim 80% of Tas old growth is protected) -this sounds very impressive until you discover that only 3% of the original Kauri Forest is left (ie 97% destroyed !!). Same thing here - the best estimates are that perhaps 8% of the original tall eucalypt old growth remains and they are merrily logging away. The real question is who is profiting ? Certainly not the workers - the facts are that endemic poverty and desperation make people do these dangerous and poorly paid jobs whilst others profit. Maybe it would be good to ask why an $800million dollar offer to stop old growth logging in 2005 and compensate these workers was turned down???? Did it threaten the people making profits from this destruction?

I love the way loggers make irrelevant claims like 40% of Tasmanian land mass is protected - most of that is mountainous and covers very little of these specific tall Eucalypt forest communities - a deliberately misleading use of statistics. There are no tall Eucalypts like the Styx and Florentine on the high alpine wilderness at Cradle mountain for example and never were - it is too cold and dry. Many of the national parks and world heritage areas were according to historians drawn up to exclude the exploitable tall old growth forests. Statistics can tell lies - New Zealand loggers for example can claim that 100% of old growth Kauri forest is protected (much like the way the loggers on this blog claim 80% of Tas old growth is protected) -this sounds very impressive until you discover that only 3% of the original Kauri Forest is left (ie 97% destroyed !!). Same thing here - the best estimates are that perhaps 8% of the original tall eucalypt old growth remains and they are merrily logging away. The real question is who is profiting ? Certainly not the workers - the facts are that endemic poverty and desperation make people do these dangerous and poorly paid jobs whilst others profit. Maybe it would be good to ask why an $800million dollar offer to stop old growth logging in 2005 and compensate these workers was turned down???? Did it threaten the people making profits from this destruction?

Nothing sustainable about destroying ancient forests with up to 1200 tonnes/ha of carbon with deliberately lit high intensity fires - so extreme that they release the carbon in the soil. The studies by Prof Brendan Mackey at ANU are clear. Yet the loggers greenwash argue these hyperintense fires are 'mimicking nature' - directly contradicting the science (see www.acf.org.au ' and search on forests). Up to 15,000 ha of old growth and native forest was clearfelled and burnt last year alone. 'Timber Communities Australia ' is widely regarded as an 'astroturf' community - funded by industry. 'Tradition' is again spin - the industrial woodchipping and conversion to chemical fungicide and pesticide dependent plantations began in the 1970's is completely unlike any form of logging before. Unless Eucalypts are >100 years old there are no nesting hollows but the loggers want to cut every 30 years - no wonder the Tasmanian wedgetail, swift parrot etc are endangered . Many people ask whether Atrazine a known animal carcinogen used recently in Tas plantations ( see 'Alison Bleaney ' on www.tasmaniantimes.com is implicated in the new cancer disease of Tas Devils? The trees planted to replace old growth take centuries to store the carbon lost - that is the science. This logging must be stopped immediately by the world community.

Fanou, Your response seems to ignore the opening sentence stating “one of the great wilderness areas” as well as your first interview with a spokesperson from the Wilderness society. Your story was more than just old growth. Whilst it is important to realise that about a million hectares of Tasmania’s 1.2 million ha of old growth (79%) is reserved your viewers are also entitled to know how wilderness is well managed,
http://tasmaniapulpmill.info/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Tasmanian_Wild...

It is also important to set the claims of the activists and the timber communities in context. These protests have been occurring for the last six Federal election cycles and have resulted in a massive increase in forest reserve, as well as the election of two Green senators.

The coupe you feature appears to be identified as FO044A by Forestry Tasmania; it is to be harvested using a partial harvest system known as Aggregated Retention using modern methods, not bulldozers knocking over the trees. This will leave about half the trees in the 30 hectare coupe. It’s map is accessed at http://www.forestrytas.com.au/uploads/File/pdf/3yp/derwent/fo044a.pdf that shows most of the area is already reserved, and the harvesting is next to the Gordon River Road completed in 1967 using thirteen D9 bulldozers.

It is also hard to believe that the partial harvest of 30 ha would release “millions of tonnes of carbon”, as claimed by the advocate. A Wilderness Society funded report recently claimed that 360t Carbon per ha was in the biomass of intact natural forests of Tasmania.

My post also tried to correct your claim that “Old-growth logging accounts for about a third of the total timber production” it does not, although my figure for total harvest was under stated, it should have been 44,000 for native forest and plantation. The total oldgrowth area harvested by FT for 2006/07 was 1472 ha, eg 3%.

Fanou
Thank you for your response, again for your information timber harvesting in the Florentine Valley is not new, it stretches back over the best part of half a century, as Don told you., so to try and present it as “shock horror” it’s just happening now, is a misrepresentation of fact.

So what was so wrong with stating, that present timber harvesting in the Florentine Valley is a continuation of what has been occurring for best part of half a century.

Or as you and Don discussed, that the ecology of Tasmania’s old growth forest is one of disturbance reliant for renewal, These forests can not last for ever, they are born by fire and die by fire, for without disturbance these forest are lost for ever.

But instead you painted the picture that we are the destroyers. Why no mention of the conservation achievements made long, long before the activists gained media attention.

Why didn’t you tell us that you were only interested in the Florentine, if we knew this was your sole interest then we would have taken you there, as just like the Styx within the Florentine there are tall tree conservation reserves set aside by foresters, long before activists gained media attention.

To not mention that Tasmanian foresters have been reserving special value old growth forest areas for over 50 years, but instead to make the statement that’s its only because of protester action is a insult to Don Frankcombe and his fellow foresters who have spent a life time working in and caring for our forests.

Barry Chipman
Tasmanian State Manager
Timber Communities Australia

The video highlights the current conflict caused by protest in Tasmania’s forests, the history and sequence of events seems out of whack, perhaps due to the language barrier.

Tasmanian forests have been valued for its timber since a Frenchman discovered and named the Blue Gum in 1792. From settlement by Europeans in 1803, there has been a timber industry, that in 1941 saw the establishment of a pulp and newsprint mill in the Derwent Valley http://www.austehc.unimelb.edu.au/tia/247.html the feedstock for this mill was the forests of the Styx and the Florentine Valley as shown on your film. The forester featured on the video was part of the management team that ensured that these forests still look pristine.

Yet these forests have been assessed for its wilderness quality. In 1989 the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area was expanded to cover 22% of the State land mass. In 2005 the reserve system was finalised at 44% of the State, fancy reserving almost half of France for conservation! Thus almost 80% of old growth forest and 97.5% of high quality wilderness was locked up.

Yet protest continue, with demands for more reserves, and the forest sector is expected to compromise. Last year the industry invited the protestors to the table but failed, see http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6074 and we now have protestors blocking lawful access by concreting old car bodies into the road (as seen on the video).

Only 1500ha of old growth forest was harvested on public land, aimed at producing high value timbers last year. The balance of the 27,000 ha harvested was from plantations and regrowth forest.

Despite Tasmania exceeding the 10% benchmark for protection of biological diversity set by the United Nations, the WWF and the IUCN by almost 5 times, the State’s international reputation is again trashed by this documentary.